science = truth ?

[Nickademus]

i alluded to bringing this up in another thread (i think the elf thing) and i decided to start a thread about it.

i personally distrust science for 2 reasons:
1) science only proves what people want it to prove. i'll use the example of holocaust deniers (and yes i have researched this) they did test to see if the zyklonB was found in 'execution chambers' of concentration camps and found there was any there. they tested chambers that had been bombed and rebuilt. yet to people who don't know this they seem very scientific

2) science is all a perception. it is dealing in abstracts that appear concrete to us. for example, is there really anything concrete about the mathematical theorems (accepted as science) of algebra and geometry. We percieve it to be universal and our logic comes up with the same answer again and again (at least for those of us who understand math) and therefore we accept it as science.

anyway, i'd love to hear what the rest of you have to say

[pce]

science does not always = the truth as you put it....
science = the search for truth.

the example you give of the holocaust deniers was not a scientific experiment because they obviously lied about the sites they tested. you don't lie in a true cientific experiment. the reason i say science is the search for truth is because it is always changing. science never comes up with an answer that is concrete. instead science invites others to try to prove it wrong, in this way there is a constant forward motion of discover which will eventually lead to the truth. i will give an example: people used to think that the earth was the center of the universe. eventually with the help of the mathematical theorems (which you call abstractions) it was proven that the earth is far from the center and that it is the one that is spinning around the sun and not the other way around. later with the same "abstract" math, we built ships that could take us into space so we could see for our selves. in this case real science which evolved over many years lead us to the truth.

if your interested, there is a book called "zero" by charles seife that will show you how real and applicable math is.

[Nickademus]

it actually was a truely scientific experiment it was simply the way the data was interpreted. people interpret scientific data (no matter how scientifically sound) to prove what they want it to prove.

[pce]

didn't you say they tested rebuilt camps for evidence of zyklonB? how can they be testing for evidence of zyklonB in holocaust camps when they aren't testing for them in holocaust camps?

in any case- what you are saying (interpreting science to fit your needs) isn't true science- real science is totally objective and doesn't care about the outcome- true there are some who claim they have conducted experiments that prove their ideas, however these are not scientists and what they do is not in the name of science, it is in the name of themselves.

[Nickademus]

the point i'm making is that any scientific information has to be interpreted. normally the answers do not jump off the page. the result of the experiment is data which we have to figure out how to deal with it. thus it is not always as true as we believe it to be. can you understand what i'm trying to say here (i don't mean that in a condescending way)

[pce]

i grabbed a dictionary to see if i can make my point....

science- knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method

scientific method- the rules and methods for the pursuit of knowledge involving the finding and stating of a problem, the collection of facts through observation and experiment, and the making and testing of ideas that need to be proven right or wrong

i think the key words are "general truths" and "pursuit of knowledge."

you are right that after each experiment, data has to be interpreted by an individual or group of individuals, but in the long run the very definition of science is to get to the truth, maybe not after 1, 10, or 100 experiments, but eventually. individualy people might interpret for their own purposes, but over the course of many examinations, i think the truth will come out (sort of like the average of the interpretations, i guess) that is what science is.

for example, one paleontologist might look at a set of bones from dinosaurs and conclude that the dino was a scavenger, another might look at the same bones and conclude it was a hunter. they each interpret it. but as we learn more and more about the nature of scavengers and hunters, we will eventually in the future come to the truth. just like how we can now easily tell the difference between a herbivor, carnivor, or omnivor. before there was just as big a debate.

[Chameleon102]

Science is merely the game of discovery.

Humans intrinsically NEED to ever grow, expand their knowledge. It is a hunger matched by the fiercest of famines, that hunger for knowledge.

Science in it's purest form has helped us tremendously. Science that is debated is called scientific debate for a reason. There aren't any grey areas in true science.

[Nickademus]

i guess the problem here is that i was also a philosophy student and i'm looking at it from a very different philosophical point of view. Its the whole idea that everything is perception because our brain only processes things through the ways we sense it (there are no true objects or truths in general because they are all how we percieve something) for example, you see a red brick and I too call the object a red brick but through my minds eye it looks like a purple hat. Yet something makes it universal that the thing is known as a red brick. I think the same thing goes for science, there are no truths. Do you understand where i'm coming from?

[RedCeltic]

I know a bit about this considering I am an archaeology student, however I study and work under CRM archaeologists. CRM Archaeologists dig where construction is to be performed. The kind of archeology CRM is envolved in deals with firstly finding if there is anything that needs excavation by using STP shovel test digs...

Anyway I'm getting off the point... I think it's a mistake when archaeologists enter the field with a preconcieved notion of what they are looking for. This has happened time and time again. The search for Troy resulted in the destruction of countless sites that where not related to Troy. Ireland was pauged in the turn of the century by archaeologists and dynamite trying to prove the Irish where the lost tribe of Isrial.

Also we have seen time and time again archaeologists come up with a theory about something only to counter it years later. The most recent example of this is the Ice man found a decade ago by hikers in the alps. First he was thought to have been of the bronze age simply because they saw what they thought was a bronze axe... later examination of carbon 14 showed he was much older than thought... the had thought that the carbon 14 was contaminated.. and tryed again with the same result. Later they found his axe was not bronze but copper... he is dated over 5000 years old.

Even more recently they had found that while they had thought that the Ice man died from exposure to the cold, and spent years formulating the theory on it... they now know he died of a flint arrow head.

Archaeology isn't an exact science because it relies on educated guesswork. Historical Archaeology (which is what I study) while also having room for error, relies less on guesswork.

We are making great strides in the science of archaeology and many times don't even excavate or don't fully excavate. We have technology nowdays where we can scan the earth to see what is below. And we are even using satilites in space for archaeology. The most important thing to remember is that archaeology is the only science that destroys it's subject. This is why it is important for us to leave what isn't in danger unexcavated. This way in the future when the science is more evolved we can go back.

[Nickademus]

that's a good example of one version of what i'm thinking, (and i agree with you on it completely) but the way i'm seeing this argument is abstract/philosophical and can't be explained through 'concrete examples' because they are also based on perception

[pce]

nickademus, i understand what you are saying now, and i agree with you, but i think we were discussing two very different things earlier, without knowing it we were looking at it from different angles

i am assuming that everyone is looking at the red brick and sees it as a red brick........

[pce]

Quote: from pce on 7:13 pm on Aug. 3, 2001
nickademus, i understand what you are saying now, and i agree with you, but i think we were discussing two very different things earlier, without knowing it we were looking at it from different angles

i am assuming that everyone is looking at the red brick and sees it as a red brick........

.......in that case, i think science is the search for truth - however if one can't define truth, then my whole arguement is invalid......i don't know if that makes sense

[Nickademus]

i don't think the definition of truth is the problem. i think the problem is that there is a)no truth to be reached or B) there is no way of achieving that truth because we cannot (by any possible means) separate ourselves from the obstacles that are getting in the way of achieving truth (in this case, our perceptions)

(i thought you and i were on different wave lengths but i'm glad we've got that sorted out now)

[RedCeltic]

I didn't study philosophy as you have... I took one class in it... I remember reading Descartes which reminds me a bit like what you are saying... although he was trying to prove God exists and I think you are trying to prove there is not truth to be searched for...

[Nickademus]

i'm trying to distance it from the names of philosophers because people tend to use their arguments and don't think of their own arguments. but yes i've read descartes as well.

what i'm trying to argue is that science is not truth. science can not be truth for either of the two earlier stated reasons either a) the truth doesn't exist or B) we can't and never will be able to know it because of perception. I don't know which of the two i prefer.

[drunktank]

Well..

Surely I'm not clever
and educated enough
to answer.

I have not even understood
everything written in the thread.

But I think there's an objective truth
that all of us understand in a subjective way.

Through science we find a percentage
of the objective truth.

I hope my answer is not too silly.
I spent a whole afternoon thinking of it.

[Nickademus]

Quote: from drunktank on 11:49 pm on Aug. 3, 2001
Well..

Surely I'm not clever
and educated enough
to answer.

I have not even understood
everything written in the thread.

But I think there's an objective truth
that all of us understand in a subjective way.

Through science we find a percentage
of the objective truth.

I hope my answer is not too silly.
I spent a whole afternoon thinking of it.

Drunktank i think you have understood the conversation quite well actually. and i'm sure you are just as educated as me if not more, i simply studied philosophy in acedamia.

What you are saying is possibly true. There may be some objective truth but we, as humans, can only understand or know it subjectively because we can not be removed from our subjectivity. We can state that we are being objective but even then we are being subjective, it is impossible to do otherwise.

I simply am not certain whether there is in fact an objective truth, and even if there is science is subjective (because humans practice science) and therefore is incapable of finding and objective truth.

(see everyone else, drunktank isn't such a bad guy--assuming you are a guy)

[Dionysian]

My knowledge of the physical sciences is limited and not studied in academia, ( I will leave academia to the academics!!!!), but is rather the common-garden variety.

But from what I have gathered,

To arrive science to conclusion or inconclusion, bases itself on 3 principles: Hypothesis, theory or Law, or a continuum of the three.

Science starting at hypothesis, or conjecturing the most sound variables; i.e. the Nebula Hypothesis infering the solar system evolved from a hot gaseous nebula, ... or in Trotsky terms (and tentative at the time) -- the moon is round, therefore the assumption, the earth is round also.

Further hypothesis backed by some hard evidence of validity so to be theoretical; i.e. Einstien's general theory of relativity, thoerizing by mathematical equation that gravity results from the curvature of four-dimensional spacetime caused by the presense of mass or energy; ... or -- the probability is good that the earth is round because ships have sail it's circumference and have not fallen off the edge into space.

scientific law implying a theorized statement of order that remains invariable under the same conditions in relation to nature and consistent with the most recent data, i.e. the first law of thermo-dynamics whereby energy is neither lost nor gained when converted from one form to another, ...or -- the earth by relativity is absolute in it's roundness at the present epoch.

in regards to revolution:

Hypothetically, A socialist revolution can easily prevail because conditions are ripe for it in the world.

Theoretically, the probability is good that it would succeed based on the applications that have been made towards it in 1/3 of the world by the Proletariat overthrowing Capitalism.

Scientifically, all people are slaves within the system and remain so because of an inertia to theorize the hypotheticals of revolution thereby negating the laws of it.

However, revolution can be applied by the law of the four Forces of Nature (strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational, along with the nucleus and the quark); in that the strong force, holding together the nucleus, will electromagnetically lead the weak force into revolutionary quarks (bands of three) by a gravitational pull thereby sparking a revolution of big-bang proportions!

Thus, Science and Revolution!







(Edited by Dionysian at 10:50 am on Aug. 4, 2001)

[pce]

i think you are right nickademus. from the perspective you speek of, science cannot possibly find the real (objective) truth. for this reason, i think that the question "science = truth?" is not even valid. however i think science (which is subjective as you prooved) = SUBJECTIVE truth (because that is the only truth we can know) so i think that in a way subjective truth is the only truth there is because there is no other way to look at things, than from our point of view. even if we try to look at things objectively, we'lll still be looking at it subjectively. in effect, the subjective truth is the objective truth as far as we are concerned. i don't know if i'm making much sense, but anyway.......

also, drunktank, thank you for your post, because, not only did it help me understand nick better, but it helped me say what i wanted to say better. i dont know what you are talking about when you say "i am not educated enough" you sure sound like you are more than enough.....

[Nickademus]

yes pce you did make sense and i see it pretty much the way you stated it. i was wondering if anyone could make me see it otherwise.

and do me a favour, don't call me nick. nick is my brother, call me demus if you call me anything. grazie!